The Effects of Cohabitating Before Marriage - Essay Example

? The Effects of Cohabitating before Marriage Daniel Park California Long Beach The current social trends allow for more flexibility in creating, building, and maintaining intimacy with another person. Only a few decades ago it was considered immoral for a couple to have sex or live together before they were married. However, today it is considered completely normal for couples to reside together even before they are engaged. The rise of couples who cohabitate prior to marriage has altered the way our society perceives marriage and relationships and led to a reformulation of the whole dating process. There are some researches over the past fifty years that have looked at the increase in premarital cohabitation and its outcomes on the traditional marriage relationship. Marital communication, satisfaction, stability, and incidents of divorce within each group were considered. Contrary to common knowledge, studies on couples who cohabitated prior to marrying indicated inferior communication skills, a lack of pleasure, a less stable relationship, and greater divorce rates compared to couples who did not live together before getting married. Introduction Probably the most common question among teens and engaged couples would be of premarital sex. Maybe some people are in relationships that are more intimate than others, but most young adults aren’t sure if they want to engage in premarital sex due to many reasons. At that stage in their lives, they are probably thinking of the pros and cons of premarital sex. On the positive side, there is acceptance from your friends, expectations of pleasure, and achievement of sexual desires. The negative side of cohabiting before marriage may be an ethical dilemma, fear of pregnancy or disease, and guilt. Premarital cohabitation has become more socially acceptable in a relatively short period of time. People decide to cohabitate for various reasons and may have different expectations for the outcome of their relationships; however, most people expect to marry their partner eventually. Although research is unclear, in general, couples who cohabitate prior to marriage do not experience a significant difference in the quality of their relationship and or higher divorce rates compared to couples who did not cohabitate before marriage. The Effects of Cohabitation before Marriage Getting married and finding a lifelong partner is considered essential for most Americans. In one study, statistics show that roughly ninety-five percent of people will marry at some point during their lives (Cherlin, 2002). Nevertheless, marriage is increasingly becoming thought of more of a short-term and economic deal rather than one of dedication for life (Risch, Riley, & Lawler, 2003; Seltzer, 2000). It must be said that divorce is becoming less stigmatized and is a more frequent event than it used to be; there is a current divorce rate of approximately 40 percent for first marriages (Risch, Riley, & Lawler, 2003). It is also true that cohabitation is becoming a more commonly accepted way to live. It is projected that between fifty and sixty percent of all people will live together before getting married (Cherlin, 2002, Seltzer, 2000; Teachman, 2003). Cohabitation can be defined as the sharing of a household by unmarried persons who are in a sexual relationship (Cherlin, 2002). Many couples make the decision to cohabitate to see if they are compatible with each other. They then believe they will be able to make a better decision whether to get married or not. If this thinking is true, then cohabitation should result in marriages that are more stable throughout North America (Seltzer, 2000). Cohabitation is by far more common in countries such as Sweden, Canada, and a few Latin American countries; in some cases, cohabitation can considered from a legal point of view to be the same as marriage (Seltzer, 2000; Hall & Zhao, 1995). This paper will focus on cohabitation research as it relates to North American culture and how it effects the traditional institution of marriage. Due to the large amount of research that has been conducted on this subject, this paper will be limited to the effects of cohabitation on first marriages. Cohabitation used to be considered unacceptable, but data collected over the past twenty years has shown a steady increase in acceptance over previous generations. In 1980 there were approximately 1.6 million cohabiting couples; by 1990 about 2.9 million couples were cohabiting, and by 1997 that number had increased by 46 percent to over 4.1 million couples (Seltzer, 2000; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000, Table 57). Cohabitation is considered to be “an arrangement of convenience that provides more intimacy, more secure involvement, and less restricted sexual relations than just dating or courting. There may be some social and economic advantages and conveniences as well” (Tanfer, 1987, p. 494). Two distinct groups of cohabiting couples have been identified. One group consists of couples who intend to marry and use this time as a stage in the courtship process. Most cohabiters fall into this category. The second group uses cohabitation as an alternative to marriage and have no intention of getting married (Teachman, 2003). In one study, only seven percent of cohabiters who were surveyed stated that they intended to remain single despite living together with their partner (Tanfer, 1987). Cohabitation relationships are typically short-lived. Currently, half of cohabiting relationships end within a year due to the couple either getting married or going their separate ways (Seltzer, 2000). Within the first two years, approximately twenty-nine percent of cohabiting couples separated compared to only nine percent of married couples. In addition, within five years from the beginning of a cohabitation relationship, more than half of these relationships ended (this includes the couples who had gotten married during that time) (Seltzer, 2000). Even as cohabitation has become more common since the 1970s and more couples are taking this step in the courtship process, divorce rates have decreased. Although this may seem to be an indication that cohabitation is causing subsequent marriages to become more stable by eliminating unsuitable matches (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Demaris & Leslie, 1984; Thomson & Colella, 1992), a recent study has shown that premarital cohabitation has a significant correlation to marital dissolution (Heaton, 2002). It has been suggested by some researchers that the cohabitation effect will decline as cohabitation becomes a common part of the courtship process and begins to carry less stigma. However, several recent studies have indicated that the cohabitation effect has remained stable over the past twenty years (Amato, Johnson, Booth, & Rogers, 2003; Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003). In addition, some research has documented that many other areas of marriage are negatively affected by cohabitation. This extensive research involves couples who cohabited in the 1970s and 1980s and strongly suggests that marriage preceded by cohabitation has a detrimental effect on marital satisfaction and also places couples at a higher risk of marital dissolution (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003, pg. 540). Depending on the specific statistical methods used, it was found that couples who married after a period of cohabitation were at a thirty-five to fifty percent greater risk of separating and/or divorcing than marriages without prior cohabitation (Seltzer, 2000; Teachman, 2002; Teachman, 2003). One area of marriage that has been widely studied is marital happiness. It has been concluded that people who get married have better mental health and are generally happier than those who have never been married (Cherlin, 2002; Horwitz & Raskin-White, 1998). Many studies have also shown that depression decreases in those who become married. In other words, marriage has a significant effect on reducing depression (Lamb, Lee, & DeMaris, 2003). Results from a study conducted in 2002 found that neither entering into a cohabitation relationship nor moving from a cohabiting relationship into marriage decreased depression (Kim & McKenry, 2002). It was concluded that “marriage is associated with a significant and substantively meaningful reduction in depression, particularly if the marriage is not preceded by cohabitation” (Lamb, Lee, & DeMaris, 2003, p. 961). Therefore, although cohabitation may not cause depression, it may prevent the decrease in depression normally associated with marriage. An identified predictor of marital instability is communication behavior. It has been shown that communication skills account for greater marital outcomes than demographic characteristics, such as age, education, income, and a parent’s divorce, do (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003). Past research on marital instability has shown that destructive communication and ineffective support can both contribute to the deterioration of a marriage (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002). Research also suggests that premarital cohabitation is associated with communication that is more destructive and divisive during marriage, and premarital cohabiters are less likely to receive support from, and also to provide support to, their respective spouses. Cohabiters scored lower on quality of marital communication and marital satisfaction than non-cohabiters (DeMaris & Leslie, 1984). In addition, marital problem-solving and social support behaviors were more negative for couples who cohabited before getting married compared to those who had not (Cohan & Kleinbaum, 2002; Thomson & Colella, 1992). This has been explained in part because cohabiters might differ in their beliefs about the permanence of a marriage commitment (DeMaris & Leslie, 1984). Another predictor of marital stability is sexual exclusivity. More than ninety percent of Americans surveyed by Treas and Giesen (2000) believe that it is wrong for someone who is married to have a sexually intimate relationship with someone other than their spouse. These high expectations for sexual exclusivity within a relationship were desired whether the respondent was cohabiting or married. This research also suggested that marriage relationships not preceded by cohabitation tend to have greater sexual exclusivity than cohabitation relationships. In addition, premarital cohabiters had a thirty-nine percent increase in marital infidelity. It appears that “compared to married couples, cohabiters are not as sexually exclusive consistent with their less conventional values” (Treas & Giesen, 2000, pg. 49). One theory is cohabiters may have lower investment in their relationship (Treas & Giesen, 2000). One study showed that characteristics of people who cohabit are more similar to single people than they are to married couples in almost all areas that were studied (Seltzer, 2000). The lower stability of marriages preceded by cohabitation is well-documented and many areas that are less stable have been identified. The debate continues as to the reason why cohabitation causes an increase in the risk of marital stability. Two perspectives have been proposed that attempt to explain this: (1) the selection effect perspective; and (2) the experience of cohabitation perspective (Seltzer, 2000; Kamp-Dusk, Cohan, & Amato, 2003). Both interpretations have been supported by recent studies. The selection effect suggests that cohabitation and marital instability are linked through unconventional characteristics shared by those who choose to cohabit (DeMaris & MacDonald, 1993). Another way of putting it is that “people who cohabit are different” (Seltzer, 2000, p. 1253). Some researchers believe that the individual differences that are found in each of the couple’s backgrounds account for the greater instability and higher divorce rates of premarital cohabiters. These may include the individual’s attitudes and behaviors when compared to couples who did not cohabit before marrying (Seltzer, 2000; Tanfer, 1987), a more individualistic view of marriage (Thomson & Colella, 1992), and liberal gender-role attitudes (Watson, 1983, Tanfer, 1987). Other characteristics include those who are not optimistic about marriage, are less inclined to have negative attitudes about divorce, have experienced a marital disruption during their childhood, and grew up in a single-parent family. Couples who are less educated, have low religious orientation, and have fewer economic resources are also more likely to cohabit (Seltzer, 2000; Amato, Johnson, Booth, & Rogers, 2003). The second underlying principle that many researchers have identified is the experience of cohabitation perspective. The experience of cohabiting by itself may affect an increased risk of divorce because it allows individuals to “learn about intimate living outside of a marriage relationship, provides information about alternatives to marriage, and acts to erode their beliefs in the permanence of marriage” (Teachman, 2003, p. 455). Another way of putting it is that cohabitation changes people. In addition there may also be apprehension that the transition from cohabitation to marriage may lead to a loss of autonomy. Research has indicated that “about one-third of cohabiting men and one-sixth of cohabiting women feel that they would have less autonomy if they married their partner” (Wu, 1999, pg. 112). Other research has looked at the importance of the transition to marriage and argues that cohabiters have to make behavioral adjustments and expectations after they are married, but the tendency for a couple to do this is rather weak (Schoenberger, 1992). One may presume that couples who previously cohabited would have already worked out most of the problems faced with forming a new household. They should also be more familiar with one another and have worked out ways of dealing with each other’s emotions and most other adjustments that are naturally made when living in close proximity with another person. In these situations, transition problems should be minimal and differ from couples who have not previously cohabited and still need to adjust to these changes early in their marriages (Watson, 1983). Watson (1983) also suggests an alternative explanation: “far from being a mere rite of passage, the act of becoming formally married may have deep and quite different meaning for those who marry after cohabiting or after a traditional courtship” (p. 146). For those who have not cohabited, the act of marriage is a new beginning with expectations and anticipations of new possibilities, such as setting up a new household. Since cohabiters have already established a common residence and have already defined their roles, this transition to marriage may not be seen as having the same “new beginnings” but having to assume new responsibilities (Watson, 1983). While no current study has determined if either interpretation completely explains the cohabitation effect (Seltzer, 2000), a 2003 study (Kamp-Dush, Cohan, & Amato) found the most support for the “experience of cohabitation perspective.” This was concluded because there was no change over time on the cohabitation effect that should have been evident due to the increased acceptance of cohabitation since the 1970s. This study also indicated that even after demographic variables were taken into account, premarital cohabitation remained significantly related to marital conflict and divorce, and negatively related to marital happiness; this is consistent with the experience of cohabitation perspective. Conclusion Although much research has been done on the cohabitation effect, additional research is needed to better understand the reasoning behind decisions made by cohabiting couples to either get married or separate. It “may well be the case that, irrespective of the legal status of the relationship, the relevant distinction to make is between people who form multiple relationships and people who form a single, longer lasting relationship” (Teachman, 2003). If these couples decide to get married, gaining an understanding of how and if their behavior or feelings change is also important (Seltzer, 2000). So far, most research has focused on collecting data from couples, particularly the female partner of the relationship. Several studies have specifically mentioned a lack of representation from the male partner (Thomson & Colella, 1992; Teachman, 2003). It is important that both males and females are represented because both genders have different roles, responsibilities, and perspectives within a relationship. It is important to understand both the male and female point-of-view. Since the lack of this information reduces the accuracy of relationship research, it is necessary to find a way to not only include the male perspective but to increase the accuracy of the data collected as well. Current evidence suggests that cohabitation changes people, and those changes influence marital instability and incidences of divorce. Divorce rates are declining among first marriages but remain high for premarital cohabitation relationships. This strongly suggests that there are significant factors within those marriages not preceded by cohabitation that cause them to be more stable. It cannot be denied that cohabitation has become common in the courtship process. This process is intended to allow a couple to get to know one another in a less committed relationship that entails less risk and commitment than marriage. The negative effects of cohabitation on marriage are counterintuitive, and the fact that cohabitation is so widely accepted now is a good illustration of illusory correlation. Once again, we are reminded that most intimate relationships are very complex and exactly what constitutes good marriage choices are as of yet unknown. Since we know there are many benefits associated with marriage, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the contemporary courtship process and attempt to find a more effective way to determine marital compatibility. References Amato, P. R., Johnson, D. R., Booth, A., & Rogers, S. J. (2003). Continuity and change in marital quality between 1980 and 2000. Journal of Marriage and Family. 65, 1-22. Cherlin, A. J., (2002). Public & Private Families: An Introduction, 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cohan, C. L. & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 64, 180-192. DeMaris, A. & Leslie, G. R. (1984). Cohabitation with the future spouse: Its influence upon marital satisfaction and communication. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 46, 77-84. DeMaris, A. & MacDonald, W. (1993). Premarital cohabitation and marital instability: A test of the unconventionality. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 55, 399-407. DeMaris A. & Rao, K. V. (1992). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability in the United States: A reassessment. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 54, 178-190. Hall, D. R., & Zhao, J. Z. (1995). Cohabitation and divorce in Canada: Testing the selectivity hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 57, 421-427. Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 392-409. Horwitz, A. V. & Raskin White, H. (1998). The relationship of cohabitation and mental health: A study of a young adult cohort. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 60, 505-514. Kamp-Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L. & Amato, P. R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 539-549. Kim, H. K. & McKenry, P. C. (2002). The relationship between marriage and psychological well-being: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 885-911. Lamb, K. A., Lee, G. R., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Union formation and depression: Selection and relationship effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 953-962. Risch, G. S., Riley, L. A. & Lawler, M. G. (2003). Problematic issues in the early years of marriage: Content for premarital education. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 31, 253-269. Schoenberger R. (1992). First unions and the stability of first marriages. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 54, 281-284. Seltzer, J. (2000). Families formed outside marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1247-1268. Tanfer, K. (1987). Patterns of premarital cohabitation among never-married women in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49, 483-497. Teachman, J. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography. 39, 331-351. Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65: 444-455. Thomson, E. & Colella, U. (1992). Cohabitation and marital stability: Quality or commitment? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54: 159-267. Treas, J. & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 62, 48-60. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000. Washington, CD: U.S. Government Printing Office. Watson, R. E. L. (1983). Premarital cohabitation vs. traditional courtship: Their effects on subsequent marital adjustment. Family Relations. 32, 139-147. Wu, Z. (1999). Premarital cohabitation and the timing of first marriage. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36, 109-127. Read More